Crikey has always enjoyed picking through the flurry of takes that chip off a global story. The difference this week is … we’re a big part of that story.
Here’s a round-up of some of the takes that have trailed the news that Crikey invited Fox Corporation head Lachlan Murdoch to sue us for defamation, and that he, as it turns out, was happy to do so.
The forward sizzle
These are the early pieces — the revelation of a legal threat, featuring, as these pieces do, the terse, cagey comments, or perhaps no comment at all from the protagonists. The pick-up by a big international outlet that points out this is something to keep an eye on. This story, of course, provided a second round of forward sizzle once we’d publicly invited the lawsuit, as reporters were able to tweet their knowledge, ahead of the event, that Murdoch was going to oblige us.
The blow-up and the hot takes
The story blows up, and we get the first round of fully fleshed-out reports — first in the US, and then in Australia. Again, the developing nature of the story gives us two rounds of this, and things really blow up when Lachlan sues. In a lovely example of the Streisand effect, almost every publication cites the allegedly defamatory sentence in the original piece, bringing it to the attention of millions of people who would otherwise never have read it.
The contrarian takes
Given we’ve sometimes been known to put one or two of these out, I suppose we’re in no position to complain. The Age‘s Chip Le Grand frankly didn’t see what all the fuss was about — it was simply a clash of “towering egos and cold commercial interests”, nothing much at stake except who gets to claim “smartest guy in the room” privileges. The piece was merely an opinion, not proper journalism. He then made an oddly gratuitous point about how much money his employers have spent defending the action Ben Roberts-Smith brought against them over allegations of war crimes (“enough to buy Beecher’s entire media empire”). We’re preparing a concerns notice about this piece as we speak, Chip, you’d be happy to take it down, right? It’s not like you were doing “important, investigative journalism nor even, especially good journalism”. We also are deeply flattered that you think Crikey employs 40 journalists.
News Corp vet Andrew Bolt’s take — that he wouldn’t give a “far-left internet gossip magazine” like Crikey the platform and publicity that would inevitably follow the lawsuit — counts as contrarian in this context, we suppose.
The measured take
We must also note that Le Grand’s employers took a more nuanced approach in their editorial today:
For any Murdoch presiding over media organisations which at their worst insult, distort and aggressively attack opponents, to sue a small website for saying bad things about him is astonishing. The Murdoch media champion ‘free speech’ to the point of nausea, but not this time.
Crikey may occasionally feature “lazy and self-righteous” work (hey, I have a name, you know) but they back the principles at stake.
The fiery take
For reasons that by now must be fairly obvious to anyone who has read this far, the real fire has come in the US. Indeed, The Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple wrote — under the headline “Lachlan Murdoch’s pathetic attack on an Australian news outlet” — an account of the differing state of defamation law in Australia as opposed to the US, a place with explicit protections for freedom of speech and a culture and set of priorities that, for good and for ill, reflect that.
The meta, self-referential take
You’re reading it.
Chip LeGrand’s piece, gratuitously dismissive of Crikey and Keane, was merely opinion.
A criticism he made of Bernard Keane’s original article of course.
So the same as Keane.
Just (much) worse.
Remember when Le Grande dismissed as ‘Twitter cranks’ anyone raising concerns about the commonwealth Covid tracing app? That aged nicely.
LeGrand’s article was just weird.
It read to me like a little school-yard tanty. Seriously wanted to comment: ‘I know you are, but what am I?’
In my view, The Age is sinking fast. Ms Alcorn’s editorial at least attempted put a tent-peg sized stake in the ground backing the principles of real journalism, but it may not be enough to start losing hordes of subscribers. Clearly corporate, clearly biased.
Slightly left of the extreme far right media, which News Corp is, does not make The Age centrist.
From what I gather via readers of The Australian & The SMH is that they purchase it for the weekend magazine inserts. I’ve suggested they instead purchase a quality magazine.
The crosswords actually.
Certainly the case with The Courier-Mail in Qld according to feedback.
The only reason to even open the SMH now is the puzzle page + Zits & Non Sequitur.
I miss the broadsheets, there’s nothing to empty the vacuum cleaner bag onto now. Glossy mags don’t work.
I use the SMH for my cat litter tray. It used to be a good newspaper
Interesting observation?? – there is currently a “deafening silence” by a vast majority of Australian mainstream media outlets re: Murdoch Verses Crikey lawsuit.
This response, in itself, is indicative of the unfettered power and control Murdoch News Corp has on a vast majority of Australian mainstream media?
In addition – a very disturbing development, is that our current PM and 2 other Ministers, have allegedly recently sidled and met with Murdoch? Even though at last Federal election, Murdoch News Corp were fully backing LNP?
This is an odd issue on which Crikey has chosen to take a stand. Crikey is a relatively small media player in Australia. The events of 6 January 2021 are issues for the US government and the American people. I fail to see how Crikey has standing in this affair.
There are better ways to bring out into the open the nefarious business operations of the Murdoch companies in Australia – if there are any – than this attention-seeking stunt.
I would rather have seen Crikey chose any number of Australian issues on which to campaign, issues where the outcome could have had a direct beneficial impact on Australians within Australia.
One issue for a starter: give Albanese & Co hell on Julian Assange.